In general, an animal deterrent system having various embodiments which may be mounted onto a variety of structures provide protection for both the animals and the structures.
It is difficult to deter animals from using man-made or naturally occurring structures. Whether it is birds which alight on power structures to perch or other animals which climb up structures to reside, animals cause significant damage to structures. For example, when animals inadvertently contact adjacent energized power lines the resulting short circuit may result in power outages interrupting the electrical service to utility customers. Conversely, man-made structures cause harm to animals. For example, animals which climb or perch upon electrical power structures may be electrocuted by contacting adjacent energized power lines or by grounding the power line to the supporting structure. As a result of animals climbing or perching on electrical power structures, electric utilities are plagued with outages, bumps, spikes and dips on their electrical systems.
Electrical utilities also have to comply with the federally mandated Migratory Bird Treaty Act and The Eagle Protection Act, hereby incorporated by reference. Under this federal law, electric utilities are required to protect a large number of birds from possible electrocution. Large fines have been levied against electric utilities in instances where electric utilities neglected to protect birds. See, USFW vs. Moon Lake Electric Co-op Assn. (1999), hereby incorporated by reference. Utilities are now taking great measures in order to insure that their systems and structures are safe for birds.
As a result of the foregoing, there is a large and growing commercial market for animal deterrent systems. The market continues to grow as more structures are built, such as power transmission structures, in even the most remote animal habitats. Because there is a large commercial demand for animal deterrent systems, the devices designed to deter animals have taken a variety of forms such as those disclosed in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,359,844; 5,299,528; and 5,650,594. In spite of the variety of animal deterrent devices available, substantial problems remain unresolved discouraging their general use. As such, the demand for innovations in animal deterrent technology remains high and consumers are eager to try each new concept as it becomes available.
A significant problem with conventional animal barrier systems can be the lack of a visual deterrent. Visual deterrents may be effective where mechanical barriers are not. Most conventional animal deterrent systems provide a physical barrier which prevents the animal from contacting the structure. However, animals may learn to work around or use the barriers as perches. Visual barriers deter the animal from a distance and prevent contact with the deterrent. Without physical contact with the deterrent device the animal does not have the opportunity to devise behaviors which mitigate its effectiveness.
Another significant problem with conventional animal deterrent devices can be that the mechanical barrier is not conformable to different sizes of animals. It may be simultaneously desirable to deter animals of a certain size range from perching or using a structure while allowing animals outside that size range access to the structure. Many conventional animal deterrent devices do not provide mechanical barriers which can be adjustably conformed to deter animals based upon their physical size. As such, conventional animal deterrent devices may prevent animals from using a structure even when they do not pose a risk and at the same time may be ineffective in deterring animals which do pose a risk to the structure.
A significant problem with conventional animal deterrent devices may be that installation of the devices requires line workers to violate safe working clearances of energized electrical equipment in order to place the bird protection systems on the electrical structure. Recently, OSHA and NEC have adopted safety regulations regarding the safe working distance for persons working on high voltage power lines. The recommended minimum distance to be maintained is 2′–1″ between the installer and the power line when working on installations over 600 volts. These regulations require that the deterrent device be designed so as to be installed with a hand held extension a threshold requirement which may not be met by existing animal deterrent devices.
Another significant problem with conventional animal deterrent devices can be that to safely install many of the convention deterrent devices requires at the very least, two line workers, for example, as disclosed by U.S. Pat. No. 4,359,844. An aerial device such as a dialectically insulated bucket truck may also be required as indicated in U.S. Pat. No. 5,650,594. Thus, the cost of installation may become prohibitive.
Another problem with conventional animal deterrent devices can be that the method of fastening the animal deterrent devices requires altering the structure by drilling into the structure to apply bolts, screwing the rigid forms of the bird protection systems to the electrical structures, or driving nails or lag bolts into the wooden structure. All of these procedures are not only time consuming and difficult, but once again dangerous considering the locations where the bird protection systems need to be placed in order to be effective. Moreover, although the conventional animal deterrent devices can be fastened to wooden electrical structures securely at the time of installation, through years of weather abuse, freezing, warming, soaking and drying, as well as the constant vibration caused by crosswinds on the spanning conductors, the fasteners may become loose and unstable. In some instances, the bird deterrent devices topple over due to mechanical failure and become a worse hazard than if no protective measure had been taken in the first place. Also, when the items are attached by using driven lag bolts and nails, the integrity of the structure can be compromised.
Yet another problem with conventional animal deterrent devices which are designed to be positioned at a safe distance from the structure can be expense. Many designs are complex, contain various moving parts or spring loaded components as, for example disclosed by U.S. Pat. No. 5,299,528 or the raptor guard produced by Pacer Industries of Twin Falls, Id. The high price of these complex units may be a major obstacle for the consumer in acquiring an animal deterrent device.
Still another problem with conventional animal deterrent devices which have numerous component parts can be the time and difficulty involved in storage, transporting, or installation. Another problem with conventional animal deterrent devices with numerous mechanical components can be that the components eventually wear out become a hazards either because they can fall from the structure or may come into contact with energized electrical lines.
Yet another problem with conventional animal deterrents may be that they cause static or radio interference.
With respect to conventional animal deterrent devices the above-mentioned problems may occur separately or in combination. The instant invention addresses every one of the above-mentioned problems in a practical fashion.